Whats with all the blind anti-Americanism?

vorbis

This board actually seems to reflect a large section of Irish society. The whinging anti American element. I won't call it healthy cynicism because its warped. In these people's eyes every thing the US says is propaganda and any unfounded scrap of info anti their view is gospel truth.
What seems to be lost in the high ground nonsense is that the US should be compared to any other country not to some perfect country ideal. Like France, Germany (Hitler anyone), their foreign policies have changed over time. Sometimes its been downright nasty (Chile), otherwise its been good (Kosovo).
A key point thats not been addressed is this notion that the US has puppet governments scattered throughout the world. Name three current governements (apart from Israel) that are US puppets at the moment. This war in Iraq has militarily been an outstanding success. No street to street fighting occured and civilian casualties were relatively small. The argument about children dying only applies if you're anti any war as it is as yet impossible to wage war without such tragic incidents.
Lastly this war is only getting so much attention from so called anti war people due to US involvement. A few facts to put in perpspective. This war has caused less than 10000 casualties yet the Congo civil war resuilted in 4.7 million dead. I have never heard one word of protest against the 6 african countries who contibuted to the tragedy. Are they better than the US?

Hobbes

Originally posted by vorbis
This board actually seems to reflect a large section of Irish society. The whinging anti American element. I won't call it healthy cynicism because its warped. In these people's eyes every thing the US says is propaganda and any unfounded scrap of info anti their view is gospel truth.

Don't confuse 'Anti-Americanism' with people who disagree with what America is doing.

Name three current governements (apart from Israel) that are US puppets at the moment.

Current? Hmm, I'm not sure. How about 'Hamid Karzai' for starters and his 'heads of states' (formally known as 'Warlords').

Recent? Not sure. How recent?
- Pahlevi (Iran)
- Papadopoulos (Greece)
- Pinochet (Chile)
- Noriega (Panama)
- Marcos (Philippines)
- Batasta (Cuba)

Of course there are more. These are just the ones I know off the top of my head from reading about them. A quick search on the web found this -> http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/AlphaC.html

Then you have the failed coup of Venezuela that the US were quick to get behind then backtrack. Or what about Iraq where the puppet was hacked to death before he could run, now they have US people running it.

This war in Iraq has militarily been an outstanding success.

Depends on how you define success.
- Massive number of friendly fire shootings.
- Mass looting, including incubators from hospitals while the military were more concerned about putting a flag on a statue.
- A large number of dead civilians (See what the actions of being pro-war are. Warning Graphic!).
- Reports of US marines looting (at least those caught are facing charges)
- Large number of Journalists killed.
- Total anarcy while the US secure the oil fields.
- Destabilizing the middle east, increasing the chances of US domestic terrorism.
- Running cost of the war over 70+ Billion for the US while thier econmy is in the crapper and the US marines that fought in this war look forward to having thier retirement benifits drastically cut by the same government that sent them out there.
- No WMD found, and even if there was, a large number of Marines died which may of been saved if the weapons inspectors were allowed finish thier work.
- Setting a presedent for new century that pre-emptive strikes is the way to go.
- US refusing to clean up any DU from Iraq despite numerous reports of the dangers of DU.
- US marines breaking the seal on a UN sealed nuclear dump.

Did I miss anything?

Lastly this war is only getting so much attention from so called anti war people due to US involvement.

Or it could be due to the fact that the Irish Government is standing behind the US and that we as a country are saying what the US is doing is right. It isn't.

Or that a country that quotes off such high ideals of living (which I agree with) then does the complete reverse to anyone who opposes them or suggests they are wrong.

bonkey

Originally posted by vorbis
A few facts to put in perpspective. This war has caused less than 10000 casualties yet the Congo civil war resuilted in 4.7 million dead.

You seem to be missing the fact that the US did nothing about this either.

Now, while that may only serve to damn it equally along with all other nations, I would point out that only the US has shown that its recent policy seems to involve ignoring the mandates of the UN and bringing military force to bear wherever it was needed.

I mean - the UN only has about 4,000 to 4,500 personnel dealing with the issue, in situ - in excess of 10% of its entire PeaceKeeping staff. Clearly, there are limits to how much of this type of intervention it can be involved in.

(As an aside, Pakistan - up until recently a rogue state - is the largest contributor of personnel to UN PeaceKeeping operations, with in excess of 4,000 contributors. Nigeria and India are second and third. The US ranks 20th and Ireland 30th).

So, unless you propose that the UN should invade to stop the war (and I can really see anti-war protestors going down that road), there's not much more can be done on what is unfortunately a very messy and bloody internal conflict.

I have never heard one word of protest against the 6 african countries who contibuted to the tragedy.

That war began in 1997. Its like so many other endless conflicts, in that unless there is some major occurrence (such as the somewhat related events in Rwanda) the world stops taking notice. Its sad, but its true....otherwise our newspapers would be encyclopaedic tomes.

So are you criticising us for not discsussing this in 1997, or are you criticising us for not discussing it in 2003?

Are they better than the US?

Well, they - at least - have the argument that they are fighting a civil war - an internal power stuggle. Its hard to get out of the way of those once they start.

Whats the US excuse for being in Iraq?

jc

p.s. Given that Ireland decided its policy vis-a-vis Shannon airport on the grounds that we couldnt risk the economic backlash of crossing the US on this one....one could make a case that Ireland is - to all intents and purposes - a puppet government for the US as well.

jc

PH01

I ran a poll on this forum a couple of weeks back on this very subject and the vast majority of people were Pro-American though Anti-Bush. OK, this poll is probably a bit gray for you but it does reflect the fellings out there. And those feeling are far from being Anti-American.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=86831

Cork

I don't believe the Irish are Anti-American. Look at the ratings on RTE or TV3 for US programmes. RTE would probably have to close down if it did not acquire these programmes.

Look at the cds we buy. Look at the films we watch. We are mad about US Culture. I think we are pretty Pro-America.

Look at the cds we buy. Look at the films we watch. We are mad about US Culture. I think we are pretty Pro-America.

Cork, its not a matter of being pro-american in these cases. We're just immersed in american products. Theres a difference.

On the other hand, i've admitted to being anti-american. :ninja:

And i have to say i'm in the minority in Ireland. People are pro-american simply because we have so much history with them. Its nothing to do with grants, or investment, or what products are sold here. Its mostly becuase most people have spent some holidays over there and came back happy.

So, don't worry. Anti-Americanism is not widespread here. Being Anti-Bush is another matter though.

Meh

Originally posted by Hobbes
(See what pro-war are supporting. Warning Graphic!).

You do realize that this is the exact same straw man "logic" used by some pro-war people who claim that the anti-war protesters support Saddam? I haven't seen anyone cheering pictures of dead babies, regardless of their opinion of the war.

I could do the same thing as you're doing -- I could post a picture of one of the Iraqis tortured by Saddam's regime and claim that this is what you are supporting. But I don't like using cheap arguments like that.

- US refusing to clean up any DU from Iraq despite numerous reports of the dangers of DU.

And even more numerous reports that such dangers are negligible, according to both WHO and EU scientists.

Being Anti-Bush is another matter though.

Hell, I'm anti-Bush. He's the worst US president since Reagan.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by vorbis
This board actually seems to reflect a large section of Irish society. The whinging anti American element

There are a fair few people who aren't Irish or even British who post on this board. Hell, there are Americans who post here, some of whom are heartily against this war, I'm one of them. Are citizens like me protesting because we're anti-American? No, we do it because we're concerned about the implications of a dangerous and short-sighted policy. Patriotism isn't a willingness to wave a flag and sing "America" at the top of your lungs- it's far more than that. How our government acts reflects on all of us, it's not something people can turn a blind eye to with terrorism staring us in the face.

In these people's eyes every thing the US says is propaganda and any unfounded scrap of info anti their view is gospel truth.

You talk about the "US" as a whole- most peoples' objections are to the administration, in particular key voices in that administration. Aka Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Condi et al, relics of the Cold War, PNAC subscribers who've wanted this war since 1996. It's hard not to believe people who've wanted conflict for 7+ years when they say they did it for the "right reasons"- reasons that aren't even brought up in the PNAC memorandums. It's even harder to count them as credible- Donald Rumsfeld having sold billions of dollars in weapons to Iraq(including WMD primers) telling Syria to stop low-scale infantry equipment sales springs readily to mind.

Sometimes its been downright nasty (Chile), otherwise its been good (Kosovo).

We've bombed 70 countries since the end of the second world war. I find it hard to accept such wholesale use of a force overseas that is charged with protecting our country. Kosovo, the Gulf War, and Afghanistan were conflicts I stood behind because they were a reasonable use of force with broad multilateral involvement and overwhelming international support.

A key point thats not been addressed is this notion that the US has puppet governments scattered throughout the world. Name three current governements (apart from Israel) that are US puppets at the moment.

Puppet probably isn't the right word, not even for Israel. Client states is their accurate title. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait since 1991 have had massive troop deployments within their borders. Their commerical interests have been monopolized by the US, their political credibility in the region is almost entirely based on our discretion. When Yemen opposed our war in Afghanistan we cut 70 million dollars from their aid budget- punishing hundreds of thousands of destitutes for the actions of a government they never elected.

This war in Iraq has militarily been an outstanding success.

War in any event is a resounding diplomatic failure. Moreover, it fails those in the armed forces profoundly. They sign their lives over to be risked on the strict understanding that they will be asked to put it on the line only as a last resort. In the forces you train for a terrible scenario which you hope never comes, because the leaders you elect have a sacred duty to prevent it whenever possible. The Bush administration has failed our troops- no matter how many flags are waved or horns tooted, our troops have been horribly let down- because war was *not* the last resort at the point of its commencement. Diplomacy wasn't given an honest chance at all- the weapons inspectors weren't listened to.

The argument about children dying only applies if you're anti any war as it is as yet impossible to wage war without such tragic incidents.

Erm, are you suggesting that children getting their limbs blown off is inevitable? Because it isn't. It's precisely because military action is a grossly blunt instrument that diplomacy needs to be given a chance. Not four months- that was a pathetic nod to diplomacy while troops were built up. Diplomacy with the Soviet Union was given 50+ years. Did people die under the Soviet boot? Certainly. Did the regime(s) pose a significant threat to us with WMD? By god, it's the biggest the world's ever seen- Iraq is a miniscule fraction of the threat posed by the USSR during the Cold War. And did we solve that particular problem with war vorbis, hmm? Did we hell...diplomacy wasn't chosen out of fear- we chose it for 50+ years (China too, for 53 or so years)- because a war would neither be justified nor advisable. It would have created consequences far more drastic than we could hope to imagine. As will this war- when Hosni Mubarak, a moderate Arab leader says he fears a hundred new bin Ladens will be created...that worries me deeply.

Lastly this war is only getting so much attention from so called anti war people due to US involvement.

Damn straight. Not to blow our own trumpet here, but the US is the world's only hyperpower at the moment. I mean, if a war in central Africa truly did drastically change the world order into one where pre-emption was openly accepted as policy- then I'm positive it would get just as much coverage. Something you overlook there vorbis is probably the real reason why this war is so covered: where it is being fought. The Middle East is strategically crucial, not just for oil, but for our own security. An estimated 80% of active terrorist groups worldwide have strong basing and support in the Middle East. That factor alone would give even the most minor conflict in the region huge coverage.

Think back to the invasion of Lebanon in the early 80s, the 72 war, or the Yom Kippur war. None of them had US involvement, yet all were covered. The Iran-Iraq war, the Yemeni conflict- all received extensive coverage. Fact of the matter is, when the US went to war in Haiti, Panama, Granada etc, coverage was incredibly low-key. Not because of US involvement, but because of where that involvement was.

I have never heard one word of protest against the 6 african countries who contibuted to the tragedy. Are they better than the US? [/B]

Just because there aren't any TV cameras or scribblers at the protests don't think they aren't happening. It just so happens that diplomatic, political, military and civil coverage of this crisis is so widespread that you cannot fail to hear the deafening din of protest. Without the oxygen of publicity, those clamouring for peace in central Africa are rather drowned out. Especially if the global order and the stability of a vital region are being put in jeopardy.

taellad

i read somewhere that every single president of america - since WWI - has brought their country to war.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Meh You do realize that this is the exact same straw man "logic" used by some pro-war people who claim that the anti-war protesters support Saddam? I haven't seen anyone cheering pictures of dead babies, regardless of their opinion of the war.

No it's not. For starters most Anti-war protesters will tell you they hate Saddam just as much and probably saw the stuff he did long before those quoting off the stuff did.

I am also not using this as evidence as to why Pro-War is wrong. However a lot of people who are spouting why they should go to war rarely look at what happens from it.

Take a good look. Saying people are going to die, is very different then actually seeing those bodies.

So next time a terrorist act happens and people go "I don't understand? We saved your asses from Saddam and this how you repay us?" you'll understand for a lot of people they don't see it your way.

You want war, this is what happens. Remember those pictures.

... Put it this way. I am not Pro-War (not really anti either). However I look at pictures like these and I think "Am I willing to do this to another human being without having explored absolutly every other option?". My answer is no. By that extension I am unwilling to allow someone else to do it in my name.

To shout 'to war' without doing this to me means the person lacks imagination and respect for life. That makes that person no better then the animal they claim to be removing.

I could do the same thing as you're doing -- I could post a picture of one of the Iraqis tortured by Saddam's regime and claim that this is what you are supporting.

Hardly. Being against a war doesn't mean you support the regime. There is no Black or White, them or us.

As for the DU. I'm sure I can dig up reports for both sides of the agument. However the UN did a study on the Balkins and while it's initially not dangerous they are cited as saying that cleaning up the mess is better in the long run otherwise the pollution gets into the environment and has long reaching effects.

Meh

Originally posted by Hobbes
Hardly. Being against a war doesn't mean you support the regime.

That's precisely my point. Anti-war does not mean pro-Saddam. Just like being pro-war doesn't mean you support civilian deaths. Both arguments are fallacious (straw man, to be exact).

Originally posted by taellad:
i read somewhere that every single president of america - since WWI - has brought their country to war.

Carter?

Hobbes

Originally posted by Meh
That's precisely my point. Anti-war does not mean pro-Saddam. Just like being pro-war doesn't mean you support civilian deaths.

Yet civillan deaths are a part of war are they not? You may not support it, but it is a natural part of war. The only thing you can hope for is you don't kill so many.

It is not a strawman, unless you know of any war where there has never been civillan deaths?

seamus

Originally posted by Meh
That's precisely my point. Anti-war does not mean pro-Saddam. Just like being pro-war doesn't mean you support civilian deaths. Both arguments are fallacious

I think the problem here is that it keeps being brought up. "If you're anti-war, then you must enjoy seeing civilians die under Saddam" always countered with "No, but if you're pro-war, then you must enjoy seeing civilians killed by bombs".

They're exactly the same argument, but obviously neither side wants anyone killed. If we just ignored people saying it, it would probably go away, but it's one of those things that strikes a chord with everyone.
(OT)
Anti-Americanism has become a buzz word and we all know it. Unfortunately, after 9/11, to call someone anti-American is to equate them to a terrorist, or someone who wishes America was destroyed.
I think most people are selective anti-American. I for example, am against the complete spread of American style capitalism, and also against the muscle which Bush pushes around. Other than that I like America. I like all Americans I've met thus far, and I'll probably go over at some point.
To say anti-war == anti-Americanism is wholly wrong. It's like saying people campaigning for pollution controls are completely anti-capitalism. There's only the vauguest of links (abot as vaugue as Saddam's link with Al-Queda )

Meh

Originally posted by Hobbes
Yet civillan deaths are a part of war are they not? You may not support it, but it is a natural part of war. The only thing you can hope for is you don't kill so many.

Originally posted by some pro-war person somewhere:
Yet "Saddam remaining in power and imprisoning/torturing/killing/massacring/gassing thousands of innocent Iraqis" is a part of being anti-war, is it not? You may not support it, but it is a natural part of not invading Iraq.The only thing you can hope for is that he doesn't kill so many.

Both arguments are equivalent (and equally invalid in my opinion), so if you want to accuse anti-war people of being in favour of civilian deaths, then you'd better be prepared to defend yourself from the inverse accusal that you're in favour of leaving Saddam in power.

It is not a strawman, unless you know of any war where there has never been civillan deaths?

To show that your argument isn't a straw man, you would have to show that all (or at least a significant number of) pro-war people actually welcome Iraqi civilian casualties. Needless to say, you'll have problems finding even one person with this opinion.

Hobbes

Look. Your equating the both as opposites when that is simply not the truth.

I don't want saddam's regime to exist probably any more then all the pro-war people wanted. That doesn't mean I want to go to all out and attack the country.

The same reasoning (if you even pay attention), saying that you want war does not equate to wanting civillan deaths. However deaths of innocent people is a normal factor in war.

Like I said I am unable to think of any war which did not have civillian causalties. So pointing out how these civillians die is not a straw man. It is putting a face to the outcome.

If you can live with your choices after seeing those photo's then there is really nothing to argue about.

Meh

Originally posted by Hobbes
The same reasoning (if you even pay attention), saying that you want war does not equate to wanting civillan deaths. However deaths of innocent people is a normal factor in war.

And "Saddam remaining in power and torturing/killing lots of civilians" is a normal consequence of peace.

Like I said I am unable to think of any war which did not have civillian causalties. So pointing out how these civillians die is not a straw man.

Of course it isn't. But saying that pro-war people "support" civilian deaths (as your original post alleged) is a straw man.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Meh
And "Saddam remaining in power and torturing/killing lots of civilians" is a normal consequence of peace.

Oh FFS, are you even reading my posts? Not wanting War does not mean you support Saddam or his regime.

But saying that pro-war people "support" civilian deaths (as your original post alleged) is a straw man. [/B]

Prehaps I should of worded it better for the anal retentive in the audience.

You support war, then you should be aware that civillians die, you are beyond a shadow of a doubt aware that innocent people will die? Yes? You may not like innocent people dying but fuk it, it happens in war. If you support the war you are well aware that the possible deaths of numerous innocent people (as shown in the pictures) were worth it to win the war?

If it wasn't worth the loss of all those people and more, then WTF would anyone be supporting the war for?

I don't believe all those innocent people dead justify the 'liberation' of Iraq with a pre-emptive attack when there were still options open.

Meh

Originally posted by Hobbes
Oh FFS, are you even reading my posts? Not wanting War does not mean you support Saddam or his regime.

Are you reading mine?

Originally posted by Meh ten posts ago:
That's precisely my point. Anti-war does not mean pro-Saddam.

Prehaps I should of worded it better for the anal retentive in the audience.

Now that I've pointed out the hypocrisy of your position, you resort to personal insults?

mike65

This for Vorbis -

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=90934

One or two of us, well me anyway, are looking beyond Iraq.

Mike.

sanvean

Originally posted by Meh
Carter?

don't know too much about whether he brought the country to 'war' in a conventional sense (like with tanks and guns and an army) but he was responsible for some murky actions, such as supporting (with guns and other military things, as far as i know) pol pot and the kmer rouge (i'm sure i've typed that incorrectly) after their defeat at the hands of the vietnamese, supporting (again with arms etc) indonesia in its occupation of east timor, as well as el salvador (but they were kind of - as far as i know - just oppresing their own people). i guess he brought them to war in a very american way ...

and he got the nobel peace prize!

vorbis

I think some anti war supporters are missing the point. It is as of now impossible to fight a war without civilian casualties. I'm for this war and I accept that. If you can't stand one single casualty then you're anti all wars. Thats a fine ideoligical stand but it renders one incapable of dealing with rogue dictators. My main reason for justifying this war is that far more civilians would have died had Sadam's reign continued.
This is also an inherent problem in being anti any thing that causes death. Followed logically it would lead to extinction. For example, over 300 people are killed on our roads each year. Is the risk of a single life worth driving to work? Of course not. However, crass as it sounds, we can't function as species unless we assign some kind of value to human life.
War is without doubt a terrible thing by its nature. However, there are still cases wheres its useful. Who here honestly believes that Sadamme or his son would have been overthrown by the Iraqi people? Ironically such an uprising would have resulted in more casualties.
As for militarily successful, in terms of a war it has been. They have taken anentire country in under a month. Outside war, US influence through client states is exactly the same policy that all other countries adopt. Theres nothing sinister in that.

Hobbes

Originally posted by vorbis
I think some anti war supporters are missing the point. It is as of now impossible to fight a war without civilian casualties.

Certainly if you take it to that extreme. I'm not anti-war, however I do believe that the use of force must at all times be the absolutly last option open to justify it's use. I am reminded to think this way by looking at the pictures.

As for militarily successful, in terms of a war it has been. They have taken anentire country in under a month.

The one positive doesn't outweigh the large number of negatives.

bonkey

Originally posted by vorbis
My main reason for justifying this war is that far more civilians would have died had Sadam's reign continued.

Thats supposition, not fact.

I'm not saying its an invalid reason to believe in the war....but there is no factual basis for that assumption that I am aware of.

It is true to say that if Saddam continued his reign in the same vein as post-Gulf-War, and the sanctions were not lifted, then the deathcount would definitely have been higher - assuming you blame all sanction-related deaths 100% on Saddam, and 0% on the nations who maintained them despite constantly telling us that "sanctions on their own don't work" when it comes time to discuss new issues.

However, the arms inspection process abandoned by the US and its coalition was progressing nicely. Had that been given the chance to finish, there was a realistic possibility that the sanctions would have been lifted again.

I accept that war will inevitably have civilian casualties. I do not accept that all civilian casualties in war are unavoidable. I do not accept that any war is justified unless used as a direct response to an armed and credible threat, and as a last resort.

I do not believe Iraq fits the bill for this criteria.

jc

I think some anti war supporters are missing the point.

I think most people who look at the anti-war camp just see one group. Theres alot of people who are against this war, not because of the civilian deaths caused. I'm against this war, simply because it was wrong. It went against all those unofficial little agreements that the west has been trying for decades to impose to prevent private wars, in this century. This war is based on two nations who have blindly launched an attack on another nation. If it was any other nation, that launched an invasion, the US would be all over them for breaking international guidelines about war. This Invasion was not approved by the international community.

The reasons behind this war are murky beyond belief. I've heard reasons such as WMD's, regime change, & lack of cooperation with the UN. In the case of WMD's, well the country has been taken, where are these alleged WMD's? As for regime change, this only became a reason after their invasion. As for Lack of cooperation, thats a UN matter, not for individual members to decide action on.

Saddam deserved to be removed. There is no arguing that. However that was never a reason for this war.

Getting back to the topic thread. I'm not totally anti-american. And i'm definetly not blind about it. I have my reasons for being suspicious of the US, and their motives. But while i don't feel one way or another for the american people themselves, i do know i'm against the Bush administration.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by vorbis
Thats a fine ideoligical stand but it renders one incapable of dealing with rogue dictators.

What utter poppycock. You're basically saying that waging war is the only way to deal with dictators. If I was more cynical I'd say- "Don't set them up in the first place assclown"- but I'm not

There are a myriad of undemocratic regimes around the world that all our governments deal with. Several of these are so-called "rogue" dictators. Are you suggesting that military force is the best way to deal with *every* undemocratic nation- even the ones we support?

My main reason for justifying this war is that far more civilians would have died had Sadam's reign continued.

As jc points out you're making the assumption that the Ba'ath regime is to blame for all the problems of Iraq. The Brits who carved the Ottoman empire up like a cake- surely that has nothing to do with a Tito-like figure holding a nation together :rolleyes:

The CIA who helped the Ba'ath party spread from Syria to Iraq to counter a perceived threat from Iran- they of course have nothing to do with it. It's all Saddam's fault- and as if that wasn't enough, the same people who launched this war armed him as well. So the correct question would be- how many more will die if relics of the old Reagan administration currently in power are allowed to continue their rule? Old habits huh.

Another interesting point you conveniently overlook- Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain- all despotic regimes supported by north atlantic nations. Last year alone 800 people were beheaded out of a total of 950 capital punishments. That's ten times more than in the state of Texas, execution capital of the US. Women are whipped in the streets for knowing how to drive- yet Saudi royalty rolls in the cash from foreign investment, defence contracters are still blinging the cash register from beefing up their armies.

US & British troops have been in these nations since the last Gulf war, to ensure regional security. Now that Saddam's regime is gone, have you heard the remotest suggestion that they will be withdrawn? After all, the reason for their being there no longer applies. Then again, given that the reasoning behind this war never applied in the first place maybe they're hoping two blunders x a pro-Israeli retired general = stability. Dream on.

This is also an inherent problem in being anti any thing that causes death. Followed logically it would lead to extinction. For example, over 300 people are killed on our roads each year. Is the risk of a single life worth driving to work?

That has to be the most retarded argument I've seen in ages. Vorbis, when you step into a car you do it fully acknowledging the risks. You accept the risk of an accident, hence the insurance. I humbly submit that a citizen living in Iraq doesn't take out a life insurance policy specifying mortal injury resulting from foreign aerial bombardment In a nutshell, the Iraqi civilians getting limbs blown off weren't given a chance to accept the risks. I can choose to take the train into work rather than the roads, I could choose to walk, take the tube. Iraqi civilians can't just wave their hands in the air and remove the risk of a cruise missile ripping through their vital organs while they're doing the groceries.

Of course not. However, crass as it sounds, we can't function as species unless we assign some kind of value to human life.

Value to human life? History records that the last people to use the term in quite such a blunt way were slavers. "Inherent physical value in human life and labor" is what I believe one slaving charter said. Ok Einstein, how many cluster bomblets would you say a human life is worth? After all if we place a value it might as well be a pricetag right?

War is without doubt a terrible thing by its nature. However, there are still cases wheres its useful. Who here honestly believes that Sadamme or his son would have been overthrown by the Iraqi people? Ironically such an uprising would have resulted in more casualties.

Perhaps but it's a risk the people launching the uprising would have chosen, no one else has a right to choose it for them. "We know best" is something colonials said after all. The UN charter and the international order make no provision for a state meddling in another's internal affairs. Heck, the Russians weren't exactly angels in Chechnya- they have WMD unsecured in vast tracts of their country that could fall into terrorist hands- the way they gassed hundreds of innocent people in the theatre siege clearly shows 0 tolerance for human rights. LET'S INVADE! See how stupid it sounds? Yet more died in Grozny in two weeks of fighting than died in the past 5 years in Iraq including this war. Where were you military solution-makers when an entire city was wiped off the face of the Earth hmm? The mind-buggeringly obvious fact is that if Iraq truly did have working and weaponized WMD a war wouldn't even be on the agenda- North Korea, China and Libya are perfect examples of this duplicity.

As for militarily successful, in terms of a war it has been. They have taken anentire country in under a month. Outside war, US influence through client states is exactly the same policy that all other countries adopt. Theres nothing sinister in that.

Really now. Name another nation that currently has land, sea and air deployments in over 40 countries. No? How about the largest provider of arms to the Arab world and the Third world. The US spends more on "defense" (spelt a-t-t-a-c-k in the Rumsfeld dictionary) than the next 15 countries put together. If you spent 250 million dollars every day since the birth of Christ you'd have spent less than we have on defence since the end of the Second world war. All other nations adpot that level of influence though, it must be true! Talk out your ass some more k? It amuses me.

Really now. Name another nation that currently has land, sea and air deployments in over 40 countries. No? How about the largest provider of arms to the Arab world and the Third world.

One thing to add to this. Well, considering one of the reasons for this war was possession of WMD's. The US is the only nation in the world with Nuclear weapons stored for use outside of their national borders. Strange, that the US is not considered a threat to national security...

vorbis

firstly, I am not a slaver. That argument was beyond idiotic. Whether you like it or not, every day a value is placed on human life. Building work, fishing, boxing all carry risk of death. However this is accepted and the value of a single human life is deemed worth less than such things not going ahead.
As for dealing with dictators, is it beyond some people's capacity to think in the present. For the last time, countries foreign policy changes. Just beacuse the CIA supported him 20 years ago doesn't mean they shouldn't get rid of him. Look at germany, its helped cause 2 world wars. Its now accpeted because simpliostically that aggressive foreign policy has changed. Similarly so has the policy of the Americans.
As for more dying under Sadamme, is it possible to argue that not as many would die in the future. The fault of the sanctions lies mainly with him. He is the country's leader. He initiated a war with another country and lost. He also has consistently reneged on the terms of the ceasefire. I don't see how the Americans are to blame for this. If sanctions aren't working then you try somethign else. What is something else?
As for American spending on arms. It is excessive but as a percentage of GDP it is in line with most countries. As to why they spend so much, presumably it is to maintain their pre-eminent position in the world. We Europeans adopted the same policy for centuries.

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
The CIA who helped the Ba'ath party spread from Syria to Iraq to counter a perceived threat from Iran- they of course have nothing to do with it. It's all Saddam's fault- and as if that wasn't enough, the same people who launched this war armed him as well. So the correct question would be- how many more will die if relics of the old Reagan administration currently in power are allowed to continue their rule? Old habits huh.

We know all that, but is your country, not entitled as a by product of it's learning process to make right some of it's mistakes?
I've made some whopping mistakes in my time, as has everyone, so have countries,indeed Britain did in retrospect when she planted Ireland, it's only in this century that moves are afoot to withdraw, after centuries of pain.
The person{read country} who never made a mistake, never made anything.

There are a myriad of undemocratic regimes around the world that all our governments deal with. Several of these are so-called "rogue" dictators. Are you suggesting that military force is the best way to deal with *every* undemocratic nation- even the ones we support?

No military force will never be used against every undemocratic nation, there are loads of options.
But military force was the only way to remove the Baathist regime in Iraq, theres no question about that.
Indeed,when history is being wrote in another decade or two, only then will be be able to make a full judgement as to whether this war was the lesser of two evils.
Anecdotal stories coming out of Basrah, regarding what the Baathists did to the locals when they crushed the uprising after the first gulf war tells a tale of what life was like under Sadam.
mm

As for dealing with dictators, is it beyond some people's capacity to think in the present. For the last time, countries foreign policy changes. Just beacuse the CIA supported him 20 years ago doesn't mean they shouldn't get rid of him. Look at germany, its helped cause 2 world wars. Its now accpeted because simpliostically that aggressive foreign policy has changed. Similarly so has the policy of the Americans

But thats part of the point for some anti-americans. We don't see a change in policy for the US. Just a culmination of 4 decades of warfare. They've just shown the world, that they don't really care for international agreements, or opinions. They're more than willing to invade another nation, based on their own reasons.

The argument above can be applied to Saddam. He may have changed his "policy" towards the world, his people and the his neighbours. In the last 5 years how many countries did he invade, or tribes did he gas? The US assumption for this war, was that his policy hadn't changed, and they attacked.There is no reason why we should see that the US have changed their aggressive policies towards other nations, and "their" national security.

As for more dying under Sadamme, is it possible to argue that not as many would die in the future. The fault of the sanctions lies mainly with him. He is the country's leader. He initiated a war with another country and lost. He also has consistently reneged on the terms of the ceasefire. I don't see how the Americans are to blame for this. If sanctions aren't working then you try somethign else. What is something else?

He initiated a war with another country, yes. And here we have the reason for the sanctions and such. He lost. If he hadn't lost, the US and the world wouldn't have cared too much.

If the sanctions aren't workin, then try something else? Perhaps, but there was no option in the US book to allow anything else to be applied. They wanted this invasion. Saddam's failure to comply just gave them, a weak excuse for the invasion of Iraq's national borders.

Personally i blame alot of things, for Saddams failure to comply. Mostly i blame Saddam, but i do also blame the sanctions that have prevented Saddam from repairing the damage from the previous war.

As for American spending on arms. It is excessive but as a percentage of GDP it is in line with most countries. As to why they spend so much, presumably it is to maintain their pre-eminent position in the world. We Europeans adopted the same policy for centuries.

True. Europeans did. And still do. And i don't see anything wrong with any nation doing so. Including Iran, Iraq, or any other nation. As a nation, they have the right to build an army to defend their borders.

But military force was the only way to remove the Baathist regime in Iraq, theres no question about that

No. No other option was allowed to be put forward.

Indeed,when history is being wrote in another decade or two, only then will be be able to make a full judgement as to whether this war was the lesser of two evils.

Doubtful. It'll depend on who's history you read. The history you find being taught in the US, will be alot different to what is taught in Europe, or the Middle East.

Anecdotal stories coming out of Basrah, regarding what the Baathists did to the locals when they crushed the uprising after the first gulf war tells a tale of what life was like under Sadam

Most people agree that Saddam deserved to be replaced. I don't think theres too much disagreement about that. However, i'll be curious to find out how the people truely loyal to Saddam, (i'm not just talking about troops, but families, aswell) will be treated by the coalition, the Kurds, and by their own people.

Originally posted by klaz
But thats part of the point for some anti-americans. We don't see a change in policy for the US. Just a culmination of 4 decades of warfare. They've just shown the world, that they don't really care for international agreements, or opinions. They're more than willing to invade another nation, based on their own reasons.

that ignores the fact that , what they did has brought down Sadam's regime which is a good thing.

The argument above can be applied to Saddam. He may have changed his "policy" towards the world, his people and the his neighbours. In the last 5 years how many countries did he invade, or tribes did he gas? The US assumption for this war, was that his policy hadn't changed, and they attacked.There is no reason why we should see that the US have changed their aggressive policies towards other nations, and "their" national security.

Perhaps you should address, that question to the people in Basrah who were begging British soldiers to dig underground looking for missing people.
The last four campaigns that the U.S have participated in were imho, and from their point of view for either reasonably benign purposes or were expected by them to have a benevolent result, in the case of this last one.
If thats not a change in policy, I don't know what is.

And in what way ( as you state above ) did Sadam change policy towards his people??:rolleyes: If any change took place, in their case it was for the worse, if such a thing was possible.
mm

that ignores the fact that , what they did has brought down Sadam's regime which is a good thing.

No it doesn't ignore it. We have all said that the removal of Saddam was a good thing. However we're questioning their motives.

Perhaps you should address, that question to the people in Basrah who were begging British soldiers to dig underground looking for missing people.

Perhaps you should address the question of the US changing policies, to the families of the Iraqi soldiers that died defending their nation from a foreign aggressor. This can be thrown either way.

The last four campaigns that the U.S have participated in were imho, and from their point of view for either reasonably benign purposes or were expected by them to have a benevolent result, in the case of this last one.

Last four? What are these four? Do you include afghanistan in that? Then come off it, since that was American revenge pure and simple.

Besides i'm not talking about their point of view. In the US point of view they're of course going to see themselves as being in the right. Just as i see myself as being in the right, for being suspicious.

If thats not a change in policy, I don't know what is.

Again, i don't see a change in policy. The US have not changed their policy of being very aggressive to other nations.

And in what way ( as you state above ) did Sadam change policy towards his people?? If any change took place, in their case it was for the worse, if such a thing was possible.

I didn't say he did change his policy. The comment i was referring to was in regards to the US possibly changing their policies. I just said that it was possible that Saddam had done the same.

On the other hand, how can any change be for the worse? For the last five years, he didn't gas anyone, try to commit genocide, or invade anybody. Seems quite a turnaround from 13 years ago.

Also i didn't hear of any huge executions of civilians, or a purge of the militaryor any such action that would place Saddam as the worst dictator in the world. The accusations against Saddam tend to fall from a decade ago, with the exception that he torured/executed his people, on a smaller scale.